Think This Image Is Fake? Mythbusters with Matt Hunter

By now most of you have seen this sick shot of Matt Hunter fighting gravity in front of Sterling Lorence's lens. A lot of you have suggested it's Photoshop, but Matt and the Anthill Films crew are here to show you that it's in fact just a bad ass move done right.

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that
supports HTML5 video

lalodhLots of times... look at Matt's right forearm at 0:24. But hey, if I had that wallride/berm on my local trail, I'd ride it a hundred times and not get bored with it either! Who wouldn't want this on their local trail??!!!

Anyone who took a moment to actually look closely at the pic could tell it was in no way photoshopped.... the shadows are perfect (check the front wheel shadow on the trail and the differing depths of shadow darkness between the bike and his arm, which is closer to the trail and would cast a darker shadow without the fill flash being able to soften it), no distortion or blurring to hide edges...perfect pic, fake should never have been suspected.

Technically all structural components have a certain amount of engineered flex built in. If something was 100% rigid it would crack. A properly designed fork will actually have a very specific amount of torsional flex built in. This affects ride feel and performance.

they can corner, just a little lethargic on uphill switchbacks. as for cornering at speed, props to specialized for nailing the geo, but a dialed wheel-set is paramount. oh yeah, and mad skills like Matt help alot too.

lafayettebiker - 29ers are excellent in flat turns, due to big BB drop, but unfortunately for the infamous "wheel size debate", from solely technical point of view (taking skills aside) the tread pattern, tyre pressure, tyre volume, rubber compound, eventually rim width and stiffness (handlebar width, pedal type maybe?) play larger role in cornering performance than the wheel diameter. Those factors are common for all kinds of wheels. In MTB the isolation of one factor regardless of application is futile. In the end all that gear, good or bad, must be put under the rider... niners, sixers and sheepsters

After much skepticism and trialling other bikes (trek slash, orang 5, norco range, kona process) I opted to trade my 26" enduro for a 29" enduro. In the end i found the only reason I was backing off was because it was a 29r. But, the bottom line was not the wheel size, but that it felt the same as my 26" in all my local spots, just a lot faster, with no getting-used-to process. Sorry, I know no one wants hear this, as a former 'hater' I still can't believe I bought a 29r, but I can justify it on the basis that 650b size doesn't really offer anything over 26, all I can say is it felt more nimble than any of the 650b offerings and in most cases had a similar or shorter wheelbase. And as Kirt Vories demonstrates in the Fox adv with McCaul and I'm happy to confirm from a mere mortal point of view, it can definitely lean.

gandalfsdad - many reasonable industry insiders were saying it quietly since a long time: as stupid as wheel size debate is (because a great bike is a great bike not because of the wheelsize but because of proper mixture of many things) it is hard to motivate making 27.5 when there are such great 29ers which truly take advantage o f bigger wheels. Spec makes probably best 29ers out there, I rode Stumpy Evo 29 and I had wet pants for three days.

People without perspective isolate factors, they stop believing in their own feel. Extreme example of the species is those who convert 26" to 27.5B by just putting larger wheels on. They take one bit out of the picture and treat all others as constants which is never the case. For instance I just bought carbon wheels to my 125mm 26" trail bike, super wide, stiff as hell, lighter than the previous, already porny Crossmax STs. Any sheepster will tell you that carbon rims are great, why not have them if you can afford them? An UP-grade by all means in any situation! Well not entirely... the problem is in the feel. On such "small" bike going so "slow" on my "little" trails (comparing to ENduro or DH bikes in Alps or Whistler), those wheels FEEL heavy, they basicaly feel like you are riding DH wheels, even with light tyres on. If I did not hear tyre bottoming into the rim and puncture eventuelly I'd think that I am riding 2ply tyres. What can be wrong about that?! They feel sluggish, even though they cannot be slower than CMAX STs. You don't feel acceleration so well, what felt like a breeze, feels hard, even though on the clock it is the same or even better thing. So the incentive to pump, pedal out of corners is smaller. Now if I had those wheels on a Nomad in big mountains, that would be another story - isn't it? I don't know what to do to make people see those things! Like E29 is not a great bike only because it has short stays!

The way I see it nobody wants to be told that their previously great bike is now an outdated concept, largely it would seem because of market forces. That to me is what 650b is all about, improvements, if any, are neglible, but enough to make us all feel slightly inferior. Truth is that bike, the 26" is still a great bike.My problem was I had to change mine, too many repairs meant it wasn't cost effective not to. I wanted another 26" enduro, could I find one? No. So I was forced to shop around 650bs I was resolute no way would I buy a 29r. But as I said in my previous post, the only argument I could find against the enduro was the 29 inch wheel, in ride and feel it felt the same as 26, well almost, the roll is noticeably faster. So in the end what do you do, stick to your prejudices even if you know they're wrong? Or go for it. Like you say, bottom line...its a great bike.

My issue with wheel sizes is focus on the diameter and stuff that supposedly comes with it. I am no scientist therefore I suspect that some part of "roll over" of big wheels comes from larger volume of the tyre. But I did my research... I drew all 3 wheels in CAD program in form of 3 circles of different diameters (impressed?) and played with them a bit, and the findings are quite puzzling. The straight forward message says that rollover is better due to attack angle, weeeeell... if we take attack angle of 30 degrees at which 26" wheel hits a 42mm high square edge obstacle, the 27.5 takes only 1.6mm higher obstacle while 29er takes 4.2mm more. Now all that is subject to tyre pressure AND suspension type/setup which most of MTBers in the world take as "we set it up perfectly and don't you fkng dare to question me - I shred for years!!!". I'd argue that cornering/braking/climbing grip is more subject to tyre tread and rubber compound. They also greatly influence the rolling speed. Therefore... I leave the "rolling speed" of a 29er as a more subjective issue. I experienced it myself, 29ers do feel like the roll faster, but just as with the illusion of sluggishly feeling wide carbon wheels, I must allow a possibility that it's more about the feel than reality on clock. What tickles me with Stumpy and Enduro is geometry, benefits of wheels alone like attack angle and contact patch can be emulated on a 26er by using wider rims and adjusting tyre pressure. Wider ims on 29er are not so easy to get, because for that you need carbon, aluminum rims gain weight quite quickly with wheel size increase as they need to be stiffer. So is the issue of tyre tread, where you might want shorter knobs and lighter casings for 29ers to keep the weight down.

Met him on the climb to a local trail yesterday as he was getting ready to video a sunset descent. Nice guy. He lives his life, we live ours. Love the ride, and marvel at those who can actually DO things we only dream of.
p.s. Matt, thanks for letting me 'beat' you up that last climb! Made an old fart's day!

Rotate image a shade under 3 degrees clockwise so that the centre tree and right hand trees are vertical... Still impressive...
That is the full extent of image manipulation here...
It may be exaggerated with that rotation but even after it has been reversed - it is still the perfect shot.

To say the still was "photoshopped" does not necessarily imply that the photograph or the move was a fake. I think it's been touched up. To look at the video, it seems that natural lighting was modified in the run that yielded the still photo, or some post production work was done. In the video, there are shadows on the underside of the left arm, not highlights. Similarly, check the lighting on the rider's helmet on the right. A reflector, a spot, or a touch up? I think it's either the reflector or a spot; the dust behind the rider seems to be a different colour than the dust coming off the tires. Sterling's a pro, and only he and better photographers that me know if he was able to do that with natural lighting and the right combinations of shutter speed and aperture

Regardless, Mr. Lorence and Mr. Hunter created a compelling image. Good job. Now I wanna ride that.

That's real bar drag, wow. Over the years you have redefined what is possible on a mountain bike... I assume every shot you're in is for reals! Keep shredding, we will keep watching and learning.
Thanks!!

The picture is massaged a bit to make it look more difficult. Thats a cool feature but try to pause the video at the picture and the burm is vertical in the video which is possible but in the picture the burm is a flatter angle which would be less possible. Maybe Im wrong???

When I first saw the magazine ad I just rolled my eyes and thought it was some stupid Photoshop trick to look cool and sell more crap. Now I'm just in awe of some serious riding skills.
Well done Sir, well done.

The thing is that almost anyone could do that, if they could deal with being that close to the ground next to them. Just build a berm with a high curved lip. Then practice riding the berm higher and higher until you can ride the very outermost part of the lip with ease. Then slowly add more dirt to the bottom of the berm, until eventually you have enough dirt in there that you're very close to it when you rail the berm like you were before.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Which is fine, because you're only 14 and you've only been on here for 2 years. If you would have been on here for as long as I have, you would understand how much this site has changed.
Maybe it has something to do with little assholes like you.

Doesn't change the fact that you are blatantly wrong Seraph. "Almost anyone" could not do it. I doubt you possess the bike skills to do that, not because I think you are not a good mountain biker, but because you aren't Matt Hunter. I doubt even .5% of the people on here could come close to doing that. None of that has anything to do with the website going to shit.

Not to say I disagree with you about the website going to shit! I think it was already in a downward spin when I joined. I think they run it well but the people on the site annoy the hell out of me. They all just repeat the same catch phrases, not too much originality.

Well I disagree that you think that only people with oodles of riding experience on berms can do what Hunter did in this video. I think it only takes perseverance, time, and desire. Sure there is skill involved, but practice creates skill. If someone set their mind to it, they could rail berms like this with their eyes closed. I'm not saying it would be instantaneous. It would take a lot of time. I'm sure that Matt Hunter did it in a lot fewer tries than most riders would. But most riders could do it, with enough time and practice.